Articles

This article is devoted to the problems of interpretation and understanding of the concept of insolvency (bankruptcy) in the sources of law that regulated the bankrupt institution at various state-legal stages of the history of Russia. In order to study the described problems, the author explores both the sources of law of different periods of history, and various works of honored lawyers and jurists. The author also touches upon the doctrinal approach to the problems of the concept of “bankruptcy”, in connection with which special attention is paid to the fundamental works of pre-revolutionary thinkers such as G. F. Shershenevich, I. A. Pokrovsky and N. E. Tornau. In the article, on the basis of comparative legal analysis, the genesis of the concept of bankruptcy is revealed. The understanding of the essence of bankruptcy is revealed depending on the period of development of Russian law. The patterns and features of succession between the “bankrupt” legislation of Russia of different periods are analyzed. The approaches of various legal scholars to the understanding of the term “bankruptcy” in legal documents of various epochs of the state-legal development of Russia are described. The article draws a conclusion about the significant influence of the problem of “concepts in a bankrupt institution” on the development of all theoretical and historical knowledge in the field of insolvency (bankruptcy). This conclusion is revealed by the example of the historical and continuity connection between the normative acts of the historical periods of the state-legal development of Russia, which are far from each other.

The article aims at the assessment of legal regulation of pledge in the Boards of Social Welfare of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century. The boards established by Catherine II worked as provincial banks accredited to meet the needs of the inhabitants of the governorates. The study focuses on the activity of the boards, which reflects the details of the economic development of the governorates, including those in the territories of Georgia and Azerbaijan integrated into the Empire in the first third of the 19th century. The author draws on extensive legal material and archival documents illustrating the reasons for the adoption of exemptions from general pledge regulations in relation to some of the boards. The specifics of the economic development of the territories, in a number of cases, empowered the legislator to expand the list of legalized pledge for certain governorates. The main subjects among the borrowers in the boards were nobles and merchants. Insufficient landownership of the nobility in a number of governorates led to the guarantee as one of the possible conditions for obtaining a loan in the boards. Due to the identified corrupt practices of the officials for obtaining loans in the boards, state workers were identified as special subjects of law, in respect of which special legal provisions were introduced in the boards.

Based on various sources, the author of this article explores the process of the emergence of the institution of indeterminate sentences in Soviet legislation. Its American and European roots are revealed, reflected in the legislation of individual countries, discussions on the issue of indeterminate sentences at international conferences and congresses. Also considered is the scientific position of pre-revolutionary Russian scientists in relation to indeterminate sentences. Some of pre-revolutionary scientists were in the public service, first during the Provisional Government, and then in the early Soviet period. In this regard, the author explores the specifics of the personnel of the Central Punitive Department of the People’s Commissariat of Justice in the initial period of its activity. It has been established that a number of prominent pre-revolutionary criminologists could influence the content of Soviet legislation in terms of introducing elements of indeterminate sentences. In this regard, the first normative acts of the Soviet state of the criminal law and correctional labor industries (1918–1921) are analyzed. The author comes to the conclusion that during the period of the formation of the Soviet state in Russia, important prerequisites were formed for fixing the institution of indeterminate sentences in the legislation. The article may be of interest both for historians of law and for specialists in the field of criminal and penitentiary law.

The review gives the main theses on the history of political and legal doctrines. It is mainly noted that this discipline is one of the oldest in classical legal education. Against the backdrop of widespread cuts in hours for fundamental legal disciplines, it is necessary to firmly defend our positions in the educational process of the theory of state and law and the history of political and legal doctrines.

The article is dedicated to the memory of an outstanding employee of higher education — Doctor of Laws, Professor Oleg Igorevich Krassov, who made an invaluable contribution to the development and upholding of the independent nature of the branch of land law and legislation. O. I. Krassov substantiated the independence of land law especially through the analysis and development of the concepts of “legal regime” of lands, land plots and other objects, as well as through the concept of “land plot”. Referring to the works of O. I. Krassov, in the current article his point of view is provided on the content of these concepts, determined by the norms of land, water, forestry, urban planning, natural resources (ecological), mining, and civil legislation. Oleg Igorevich is the founder of the studies of comparative land law. He has prepared monographs on land rights in Europe, common law countries, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Taking this into account, and as an additional substantiation to his opinion on the independent nature of the branch of land law and legislation, O. I. Krassov referred to world’s experience in the development of land law and rights to land and land plots in different countries. As a result, he advocated a unified legal regime for land plots. In his opinion, the legal regime of land plots is established not so much and not only by the norms of civil law and legislation, but by special rules established in land law, the Land Code, and land legislation.

Serafim Vladimirovich Yushkov is the founder of the history of the Russian state and law, who formulated its subject, developed the periodization and methodology of the corresponding course. At the same time, the contribution of the scientist to the development of certain important issues of the history of state and law in the assessments of his contemporaries has not been fully investigated in modern literature. The archives have preserved little-researched transcripts of meetings at which the works of S. V. Yushkov were discussed and debated. The study of this heritage, which reflects the controversial theoretical issues of that time, activates interest in the study of S. V. Yushkov’s contribution to historical and legal science, encourages the study of not only of the origins of Soviet historical science, but also of public discussions, as well as the positions expressed on them by scientists who worked side by side with him, on whose his creative search was carried out in front of his eyes. On the basis of archival sources not previously involved in scientific circulation, the article reveals the features and directions of scientific discussions related to the research of S. V. Yushkov, his contribution to the study of specific historical and legal issues. In the course of the research, retrospective analysis, concrete historical and comparative historical methods were used. It is concluded that the individual weaknesses of S. V. Yushkov’s concept revealed at the meetings in the process of criticism later turned out to be its strong point, and the scientific community recognized the outstanding merits of S. V. Yushkov in creating the foundations of the history of the national state and law.

The article describes what primary employment is, according to the labour law system of Russian Federation. It reveals that there is no definition of such concept and tries to derive it through the legal history. A work-book was the unique and remains one of the main characteristics of the primary employment, so the paper discusses, is it possible to combine legally two or more primary employers having more work-books. The judicial opinion is analysed and there are shown different approaches that result from the lack of legal definition of primary employment in the Labour Code of Russian Federation. The author’s approach based on the law branch principle of combining state and contractual regulation of labor relations and on the primacy of the labour contract proves that one could have more primary employments. The type of employment is one of the terms of labour contract. Multiple primary employment is not prohibited, so the author concludes, that such employment is legal, but the main point is not regulated because of the lack of legal definition what primary employment is. This causes ill effects for the worker, because he’s not protected as well. Therefore a primary employment is without specifying that it is off-time job.

The aim of this study was to clarify the concept of “legitimacy” used in theory of state and law, as the term often leads to confusion due to the plurality of its meanings in different contexts. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that the usage of legitimacy can be still be primarily categorized into two directions: legal legitimacy and moral legitimacy. Legal legitimacy represents the normative side of the concept and seeks to establish a hierarchy of legal orders, with the juspositivists like Kelsen and Hart advocating for grundnorm and rule of recognition and jusnaturalists like Aquinas and Sir Blackstone defending the supremacy of the natural law. Moral legitimacy discusses the sources contributing to the “right to rule” from the perspectives of consensus that derive from Aristotle’s advocacy for political stability and Rousseau’s social contract, and perspective of conflict that roots in Maciavelli’s distrust of human nature and Marx’s class struggle. By contrasting the theories of a variety of legal and political philosophers, this paper produced an overview of the evolution of legitimacy, which allows the readers to form a cohesive understanding of the concept and its usage.

The subject of this study is the normative legal acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation regulating additional guarantees of the implementation of the constitutional right of citizens to appeal in the subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities, as well as the problems of establishing additional guarantees by regional legislators. The value of the study lies in identifying regulatory gaps at the federal level, contradictions of some regional norms to federal legislation, as well as their features. The author formulated specific proposals for the prospective improvement of legislation on citizens’ appeals, established the limits of regional laws and their place in the mechanism of realization of the right of citizens to appeal.

The reasons are indicated and the expediency of increasing the terms of consideration of appeals in a foreign language or in dot-relief font of the blind is justified, the declarative and abstract nature of a number of regulations, defects of rulemaking in the acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation are noted. Regional legislators, when proclaiming additional guarantees, should avoid arbitrary changes to the current system of norms, strive for reasonable stability of legal regulation, regulate and unify such guarantees more clearly. The necessity of attributing a number of regulatory norms to the competence of the federal legislator, including for the purpose of their unified application in all subjects of the Russian Federation, is noted.

The modern concept of regulation of state control (supervision), municipal control assumes its coordination with the legislation on administrative responsibility to ensure the orderly application of state coercion. At the same time, the basic prerequisites for adjusting the grounds for bringing to administrative responsibility are currently set precisely by the legislation on control (supervision), which is focused on preventing and suppressing violations of mandatory requirements, and not on punishing them. The measures taken to achieve this goal indicate that at the regulatory level in Russia, a model of subordination of proceedings on administrative offences in relation to control and supervisory proceedings is being formed by limiting the grounds for initiating cases of administrative offenses, expressed in non-compliance with mandatory requirements. Within the framework of this model, the legislator introduces special restrictions to the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation regarding the initiation of cases of administrative offences related to non-compliance with mandatory requirements, which are aimed at reducing the administrative burden on economic activity. However, in practice, the relevant legal regulations are applied restrictively and not to the full extent, which makes it difficult to implement the model of administrative-law measures enshrined in the legislation, by virtue of which bringing to administrative responsibility should follow the conduct of control (supervision), not ahead of them.